Of course you don't. It doesn't fit with your narrative. But there are always a significant number of late deciders, and they broke heavily in favor of Trump. Remember, Trump didn't win by much. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-elect-donald-trump/?utm_term=.275f602f0931 Actually, I'm very objective. It's in my nature. The moniker the attach to my Brigs Myers personality type is the "logician". I'm a pretty logical guy. I'm about as objective has humans come, and I have supported both Republicans and Democrats. I last McCain back when he first represented himself as a political maverick. I have no party loyalty, and I'm like George Washington in that I don't like political parties. Cute, but no one said they were. There are other alternatives than voting for Republicans. Frustrated Democrats can and do vote for alternative candidates or not at all; whereas Republicans tend to fall in line as they did last year and vote for the party nominee. Let's put this into perspective, you asserted most of the people voted for both Trump and Clinton even though you they didn't like either of them. There is no evidence of that, though I'm sure there were many Sanders supporters who were not thrilled with Hillary. Many Democrats did vote for Clinton and they were very passionate about their vote for her as evidenced by the large crowds who attended her rallies. They truly loved her, and Trump has many folks who truly and passionately supported him as demonstrated by the crowds who followed him, though I'm sure there were many Republicans who voted for him simply because he was a Republican, and it's the Republican thing to do, e.g. Paul Ryan. What does that mean exactly, and how is that relevant? Clinton did win the majority by almost 3 million votes: the same margin of votes garnered by Obama. But Obama won and Clinton lost owing to the very undemocratic aspects of our government. The fact is there is no equivalence between the Republican and Democratic Parties. Trump lied at every opportunity. Clinton didn't call for Trump's arrest. There were no calls for "lock him up" as there were on the Republican side of the fence. Democrats ran a much more clean and honest campaign than did Trump and his Republicans. The equivalence you have attempted to draw is a fiction. Just because you are very partisan, it doesn't make me any less objective. Look how far you have sunk. You cannot support your assertions, i.e. beliefs, with reason and fact so you resort to ad hominem. That's not a logical argument. That's a fallacious argument of desperation. You are not a Republican, but you always propagate the Republican cause and preach and defend Republican talking points even to the point of repeating Republican talking points verbatim, e.g. stuffing stuff down your throats. Who do you think you are fooling? I think the only one you are fooling is yourself. I don't know what it is about Republicans but they have this notion Democrats are always stuffing stuff down their throats. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You need to take your own advice and stop deluding yourself. Well, I think that's a very naive view, and I don't see anyone blaming Trump supporters for all of their problems. Hillary and Obama won the popular votes by similar margins. Where it not for the undemocratic aspects of our government, Hillary Clinton would be POTUS and Democrats would control both houses of congress. That's a fact. Democrats know the have a problem with rural areas and appealing to lesser educated whites. They know the undemocratic aspects of our government, the Electoral College and gerrymandering, are problems for them. They aren't that dumb, and they are preparing for future elections. But the problem isn't the candidate, it's also and more importantly, a structural problem with our democracy. That's why Democrats are restructuring and refocusing. Obama isn't walking silently into the night as his predecessors have done. He will be devoting a great deal of time refocusing and reorganizing the party base. In 2010 Republicans controlled the redistricting in most states, and that has allowed the Republican Party to control congress for most of this decade. Obama's mission is to make sure that doesn't happen again. In a few years, there will be another census, and another redistricting. Obama intends to make sure Democrats have say in that process. It's not enough for Democrats to offer a "better candidate". They need also need to address the structural problems they face. There really wasn't anything wrong with Clinton. She was a good candidate as evidenced by the popular vote counts. But it takes more than just a good candidate to win, Democrats also have to address the structural challenges they face, e.g. the Electoral College, gerrymandering, etc. Our warring ways...really? You sound like some of the Russian trolls on this site. Bernie Sanders raised so much traction because he is a charismatic individual and charisma counts. Hillary was more supportive of Wall Street than Trump? I don't know about that. But judging by Trump's nominees, it's difficult to find a more Wall Street friendly crowd than the people Trump has appointed to his cabinet and regulatory agencies. Clinton's most ardent supporters were no friends of Wall Street, e.g. Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, et al. You don't like Hillary. That doesn't mean everyone doesn't like Hillary. More people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. You keep ignoring that fact.
If Obama was the chicken what does that say about your beloved Mother Russia who fears him and wants Trump? The fact is the only way a no fly zone could lead to war is if Russia violates the no fly zone. If Russia wants war, so be it. The world will not be held hostage to Russia's two bit petty dictator. If Putin becomes suicidal whose fault it is that? You keep ignoring Putin has a choice and Putin has a much shorter stick. If he wants to kill millions of Russians to boost his ego, whose fault it is that? Russia needs to stop pushing its problems and insecurities onto others.
LOL.... Personal attacks aren't a substitute for facts and reason comrade. This isn't Republican talk radio.
When an election is close, you can always point to a lot of different issues that could have swung the election the other way if they had broken differently. But I generally prefer to look at how a candidate did historically vs their peers as well as missed opportunities. One of the big differences between Obama and Clinton is that Obama inspired people and Clinton didn't, and as a result she was not able to motivate voter turnout: people who voted for Obama in 2012 stayed home instead of voting for Hillary. Even with a higher population and higher turn-out, she received fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. And don't "blame" that on 3rd parties/write-ins. There were no strong third party candidates this year: people like me voted for someone other than Trump or Hillary because of their weaknesses, not the alternate candidates' strengths. The other issue I saw was campaign strategy, and there were a couple of issues there: 1. Hillary ignored states that she thought were locks, whereas Trump went after them. 2. Hillary took a posture of arrogant inevitability instead of actually trying to convince people to vote for her. In doing so, she left issues of strength, such as the economy, underdeveloped.
I agree that a badtempered cocker spaniel would have gotten more people off their couches and into the voting booths for it than for Hillary, but that has everything to do with the Dems and Hillary.
Voting for Hillary over Trump doesn't mean that people like her. Being preferred over Trump isn't a great accomplishment. I have no problem with Obama and am sorry to see him go. Money in politics is the greatest structural impediment. Our representatives, largely, represent everyone but the average voter. Until that is fixed other structural changes are small potatoes. It's also a mistake to think that under educated white males are the only people who support Trump. I'm (unfortunately) reminded of this everyday by a female friend with a PhD in neuroscience and a Masters in Chemistry who posts nonsense supporting Trump on Facebook.
Still unrepentantly unaware, Sculptor. I gotta ask: Why? I mean, it's true, this method of Joe's has always been a bit superficial, but think of how people get annoyed when I go off about racism or misogyny. Why do I do it? Because it is present. Why does Joe hit people as Russian trolls when they're acting like trolls and pushing Russian propaganda? Because they're trolls pushing Russian propaganda. This part seems pretty straightforward. Still, though, if you see phobic and prejudicial behavior, are you able to establish a supportable and realistic standard against which we might compare it?
So you don't think calling people names is a personal attack? Okay. You think learning from the lessons of history and not repeating the mistakes of the past is a "tad radical"? I don't. The last time we had a fascist dictator in Europe invading and annexing the lands of neighboring states as Putin has repeatedly done, 85 million people died in an event you may have heard about. It's referred to as WW II. What we should have learned from history is that appeasing fascist dictators doesn't work. It led to the deaths of 85 million people. Your man Trump seems to be oblivious to history and facts in general. The fact that Putin is repeating Hitler's playbook and even using the same excuses to justify his aggression should cause everyone of good faith and with some rudimentary knowledge of history some concern. So no, I don't think opposing a fascist dictator is a "tad radical".
Everybody has phobias. I've a professor friend who suffers from Ophidiophobia. Pointing this out ain't = to calling him names. It is just a descriptive word. Another friend has Alektorophobia. Again, it is just a descriptive word. Personally, I'm a bit basophobic. Again, just a descriptive word. If a simple descriptive word triggers your defense mechanisms, than you just may have a problematic condition. For your enlightenment and entertainment here is a link to a list of 100 phobias: http://www.fearof.net/ ..................... and, then, we have Clintonphobia see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-against-hillary-fear-of-retaliation/378914/ ......... as/re radical "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." AuH2O
That doesn't explain a single vote for Trump. This does: An extraordinary level of gullibility in the face of rank nonsense, a childishly naive vulnerability to what a reasonable observer would hardly dare credit as persuasive even in the agitprop line (until confronted with an American, not even an ignorant foreigner, "liking" and agreeing with its sentiments), is what we have to explain. These are adult men, these Trump voters. Many have military experience, including that of being betrayed in actual war by this very faction's media operations. They are looking at Clinton and seeing twenty five years of assembled slander instead. They are looking at Trump and seeing - what can they possibly be seeing? Some kind of opposite-golem, a figure they have assembled from the imagined negatives of what mistrusted punditry has presented?
It's nothing to do with candidates' relative likeability. Or policy. Or credibility. It's all about the temper of the times. America [that slightly more empowered faction of America that controls its dysfunctional electoral system] is ready to knock over civilization, exterminate the majority of all species on earth, and start over with cavemen.
The election wasn't that close in the voting. Clinton had a three million vote margin even with the huge undercount of the black vote, a better than 2% lead - there have been several elections much closer than that.
That isn't how American Presidential elections work, so it is gibberish. Like claiming a pitcher who threw more strikes "really won" regardless of the actual score of the game.... ...And it doesn't address the issue being discussed.... ....which overall is pretty typical for you!
It's called "arithmetic", and it's how pretty much everything works. Silly. It's not that complicated a sentence, I'm sure a quick reread will help you out: You said the election was close, I pointed out that in the voting it wasn't. Simple enough. Nothing about who won. And by that I meant either vote. It wasn't a squeaker in the electoral college vote either. Trump broke 300 fairly easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin It directly addressed your post and subject - I can understand if that means little to you, but it is solidly aligned with the OP. Because it means your contention that there are "a lot of different issues" that could have changed everything by breaking differently is a species of bullshit. There are just a few obvious and critical things that could have - and should have - made an immediate difference by "breaking differently" (such as counting the votes actually cast, or the FBI not trashing a particular candidate in the final week), and the matter is not really dismissible in that tone of triviality. Especially in a thread about why the Democrats lost the election. Although, again, how and why Trump won seems much more significant.
As an outsider, perhaps complacency played a part? Voting in Australia is compulsory, and that not being the case in the US, may have seen many people who were of the opnion that Clinton was a shoe in, may not have voted. As has been proven, they are Idiots and can have no one now to blame for the next 4 years but themselves. I'm 12,000 kms away, and I just hope this Donald Duck clown and his policies or lack thereof, does not affect my country or the world at large too much.
About your wild propaganda fantasies it says nothing, because they have no connection with reality. Threatening to shut down airplanes over a foreign state is an illegal threat of aggression. And if this threat is ignored, and a plane is shut, this is the act of war. Not ignoring the illegal threat.
Also, early in the primaries the HRC campaign sought to elevate the more marginal republicans like trump, cruz and carson to force the republicans farther to the right----------------while that may well have been good tactics, it turned out to be a huge strategic blunder. (win the battle to lose the war) from: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/WikiLeaks-Clinton-Promote-Carson/2016/10/11/id/752705/ and, then: from: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-calls-no-fly-zones-syria It would seem that she began to believe and internalize her oft repeated concept of exceptionalism. (laws only apply to the other guy?)
LOL..... The truth isn't propaganda nor is it a fantasy comrade. I'm not in your beloved Mother Russia. This forum isn't in your beloved Mother Russia. You either need to learn the difference or start being honest. I asked you a question and you have obfuscated as dishonest slime-balls are wont to do. Once again for your edification, you wrote (Post #20), "Clinton remaining the chicken like Obama." I asked you a if Obama is a chicken, what does that make your beloved Mother Putina who fears both Clinton and Obama? Now you know better comrade, because we have had this discussion many times before. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139 authorizes the use of force. Your beloved Mother Russia voted for the resolution. The funny thing is you have no problems with illegal Russian aggression. You have no problem with Russia's repeated illegal invasions, occupations, and annexations of the lands of its weaker neighbors, or Russian illegal violations of the airspace of other nations, and yet you are the first to cry about the possibility that other nations might take actions which are 100% legal. Russia, i.e. Putina, has a choice. If he wants to violate a no fly zone, should one be imposed, that's on him. If he wants to start a war with the West, that's on him. If he wants to incinerate the Russian state, that's on him and people like you who enable him.
Seriously......you believe anything Newsmax, i.e. "Fake News R Us", writes? Well that's your problem. Unfortunately for you and your cohorts, fact and reason still matter, and there are still good and credible sources of information. Newsmax isn't one of them. Yes, Hillary has proposed safe zones protected by no fly zones in order to provide safe havens for Syrians. What's wrong with that? Would you rather have them inundate Europe - something Trump also opposes? What would you do with the Syrians? Would you allow and foment genocide? Would you allow Russia and Assad to continue their campaign of mass slaughter? Is that your solution - just kill them all? Is that your solution? If that's your solution, you should have the guts to say so.
